The Wanganui Chronicle. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1927. EXTRA-TERRITORIAL RIGHTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19767, 15 February 1927, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1927. EXTRA-TERRITORIAL RIGHTS

Another bid for complete Chinese sovereignty is indicated by the latest statement of Mr Eugene Chen,' who has notified the Consuls that, for the future, no more eases on behalf of foreign plaintiffs will be heard in the mixed Court, but must be tried before a Chinese magistrate, and that no consular official will be allowed to sit with the latter as an assessor. With this pronouncement, the extra-territorial Courts, so far as southern China is concerned, will go out of existence.

Frequent references to “extra-territoriality” have appeared of late in the cables regarding China, and it was the same when Egyptian and Turkish sovereignity were engaging attention. To those whose business it is to know such things, the position appears so simple as to require no explanation. There are many, however, who are unaware of the significance of the term, and these no doubt will welcome a brief definition of it.

“Extra-territoriality” has been defined as “the privilege of being considered outside the territory and, therefore, exempt from the laws of the country in which one is, for the time being, resident.” This privilege is accorded to foreign sovereigns and foreign ambassadors, with their households, and also to public ships of foreign powers within territorial waters. For example, a British ambassador’s residence, in whatever part of the world it may be, is for legal purposes, regarded as British ground. The German ambassador’s is German ground, whether in Britain, America, Italy, or anywhere else. Similarly, the deck of a warship is considered the ground of the country which owns her, no matter what port in the world she may lie

These cases, however, do not fit those to which the Chinese are taking exception. The extra-territorial right to which the Chinese chiefly object is that which comes under the heading of “capitulations,” the word, of course, being used in the legal, and not the military sense. It means that a foreign plaintiff or defendant is exempt from trial by the judiciary of the country in which he resides, and has his case heard by his own consul. Thus, a British subject suing or being sued in, say, the Turkey of a few years ago, had no occasion to have his suit tried by a Turkish judge. His own consul, or a legal officer appointed by the latter, heard the case and decided it. Or, in the case of a Frencliman, charged, say with robbery in Peking, he would be tried by a French Consular Court, and not by a Chinese Court with Chinese judge and jury. REASON FOR THE COURTS Extra-territorial rights, so far as law processes go, are never claimed by one civilised country from another, since it is assumed that they will give each other’s subjects a fair deal. But they are usually claimed in respect of semi-civilised or back-wardly-civilised countries, and they become an absolute necessity in uncivilised lands, such as, for insatnee, the Solomons. Wc have heard quite a lot from some irresponsible people about the inequity of extra-territorial rights, and the question has been put: How would Britain like China to claim similar privileges for her nationals in England? The two cases, however, are not on all fours. Long and bitter experience has shown not only the British, but every civilised government, that it is hopeless to expect justice from a native judge in a semi-civilised country. The sense of justice, in such cases, is usually lacking, especially where a foreigner is concerned. Who, for instance, would care to stand on trial for his life, or in a suit against his fortune, before a Moroccan chief, an Egyptian pasha, or a Chinese mandarin? Out of many flagrant cases of injustice arose the practice of extra-territorial courts for foreigners, in which the judge was a fellow national, and in which, with a better conception of the principles of justice, something like a fair trial was assured.

Of course, as a semi-civilised nation advances and reaches that point where it considers itself entitled to full sovereign powers, the abrogation of these rights is demanded. In the cases of Egypt and Turkey, the demand has been conceded, as it no doubt will be to China. Whether they will prove themselyes worthy of it, they have still to show. Enough, however, has been said to show that the matter of extra-territorial rights is not, as some ill-informed persons believe, merely a piece of tyrannical injustice or capitalistic exploitation. These privileges have been exercised as a matter of necessity and in strict accordance with the established principle that every nation is entitled to the right to protect its citizens who reside abroad.